We already know by now that the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) ordered the FBI in 2016 to not charge Hillary Clinton with “gross negligence,” the standard found in 18 U.S. Code § 793 Section (f) of the Espionage Act, for her mishandling of classified information by having a private email server in her home while serving as Secretary of State, according to a former Bureau attorney’s congressional testimony.

Here is what the statute says [Emphasis added]:

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Notice that the statute doesn’t mention the word “classified,” it simply reads “any document.” Also note that the concept of “intent” doesn’t appear either. That was done on purpose because the Congress felt so strongly about it that they wanted to make it known that even if you accidentally violate the statute, you will be charged. Gross negligence is the standard, and that’s what former fired and disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok wrote for former fired and disgraced FBI Director James Comey, until gross negligence was changed to “extremely careless,” thinking we the people would be stupid enough to believe that only the words gross negligence would trigger the statute?

We only know that Loretta Lynch’s DOJ directly influenced the FBI’s looking the other way on Clinton’s serious crimes from testimony provided to members of Congress in 2018 by the former fired and disgraced FBI attorney who served former fired and disgraced Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page. House Republicans released the transcripts of her testimony this week.

In her testimony, Page said that the FBI did not blow off the charge of gross negligence, to the contrary, she said they had “multiple conversations” with DOJ officials about charging Clinton with gross negligence. In the end, the DOJ said that a charge of gross negligence was “too vague” and felt it couldn’t “permissibly bring the charge” or “sustain” it. BULLSCHTEIN! Gross negligence is gross negligence. Extremely careless is gross negligence. In this instance, it means a lack of caring about the security of government documents, a reckless disregard of the legal duty to protect the contents of said documents. The very fact that Clinton had a private email server, and was using it to conduct government business, is in itself a reckless disregard of the legal duty to protect the contents of the emails sent and received.

Former Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified before Congress in 2016 where she told the committee, “I made the decision, some time ago, that I would accept the recommendation of that team. When I received it, there was no basis not to accept it, and again I reiterate my pride and faith in them.” Again, BULLSCHTEIN! She accepted it because that’s exactly what she allegedly agreed to in the deal she made with Bill Clinton during their now-famous tarmac meeting.

She also said, “I met with … career prosecutors and agents who conducted that investigation. I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation,” “I received the recommendation of the team, and that team was composed of prosecutors and agents. With the unanimous recommendation as to how to resolve the investigation, and what the information that they had received,” and “I accepted that recommendation. I saw no reason not to accept it.”

Hmmm

Lynch was feeling the heat after the tarmac meeting was discovered. She refused to recuse herself (honestly, when do Democrats ever recuse themselves?) but she assured the American people that she would accept whatever the FBI recommended. Cue Fake News to use that statement to make it seem as if Lynch was a straight shooter and didn’t have a personal bias over the case. BULLSCHTEIN! But, but, but the tarmac meeting.

So, if we are to believe the testimony of Lisa Page that the DOJ had already ordered the FBI not to charge Clinton for her crimes, was Lynch not committing perjury when she testified that she would accept whatever recommendation the FBI made, even though her department had already ordered the FBI not to charge Clinton?

Another way of asking the question would be, is it considered lying when you make a statement about a future act, and being the only one in the room who already knows the outcome of that future act, and you don’t let on that you know? That’s deception, which is a form of lying.

I think Loretta Lynch should be charged with perjury for lying to Congress. ONLY the Attorney General could order the FBI not to charge Hillary Clinton for her crimes.

My book is here! And I personally handed a copy to our President at the White House!!! I hope you enjoy it @realDonaldTrump!

Join The Conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

You’re going to want to try this! click here

The Latest

Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) confirmed her full support for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ ‘Green New Deal’ (GND) nightmare this week, pledging to move forward on the legislation that will inevitably destroy the American economy despite the fact that Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposes the program. “What she says to me, you have to represent your district. She says …

Reporters quizzed Kellyanne Conway over remarks made by her bitter husband that was turned down for a White House job and has been spouting off about President Trump ever since. They were trying to put her in the awkward position of defending her boss and her husband at the same time. The ploy did not …

Democrats running for president are making four promises they cannot possibly deliver on. This is a good thing for them because they cannot be held accountable since they require constitutional amendments. They are lowering the voting age to 16, introducing term limits for Supreme Court justices, dissolving the Electoral College and adopting a National Popular …